Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Aug 17, 2014, 09:25:So your limited view makes that the correct one? Gotcha, I should find the boot times measurement that MS published a few months ago on average people had a 48% decrease in boot times. And really you posted nothing specific either, so if you want to play that game I can as well.

But, slight? Not really. If it was only a "slight" upgrade, then you wouldn't see the gutting of the bloatware out of oh say the kernel itself.

I've already pointed out that they do not boot in the same way, that's why there are differences in boot times. I wasn't citing vague improvements so why would the onus be on me to support your position? I doubt most people here would consider Windows 7 crash prone and I can think of almost no applications which run on Windows 8 that do not run on 7 aside from WinRT apps. Yes slight and that's exactly what I was referring to before by the way, 'kernel bloatware'. Neither Windows 7 nor Windows 8 are lean operating systems, both in foot print and resource requirements.

How about we just except that everyone's experience will be different when it comes to their particular installs of Windows 7 and 8, eh? This bickering about which is better is pointless.

Windows 8 is a very small evolution of Windows 7 so in the software world its 'better' but its the degree of exaggeration that I find funny.

Redmask wrote on Aug 17, 2014, 00:18:I shaved 4 seconds off my boot time moving between identical hardware, yes that is slight. You posted nothing at all specific about which apps were suddenly compatible nor what 'crash prone' elements about Windows 7 were fixed in 8. Most people who claim they know what's 'under the hood' just cite vague sources because they don't actually have a clue and are just blindly trusting articles they read.

There's nothing really wrong with 8 other than Metro but claiming its anything but a slight improvement over 7 is disingenuous. Nothing wrong with slight improvements either but they aren't worth upgrading for if you're already running 7 and happy with it. For newer builds well, those people don't have a choice anymore.

So your limited view makes that the correct one? Gotcha, I should find the boot times measurement that MS published a few months ago on average people had a 48% decrease in boot times. And really you posted nothing specific either, so if you want to play that game I can as well. Oh, as for people who don't know what they're talking about, let's start with the boot issue and why. See it's not a hybrid boot, unlike the old way of booting. It keeps the "kernel session" active, which guts the total boot time. Leaving the unique user session to be loaded out of the profile. Oh and following with that, shall we look at why WDM made such an impact after the original release in 1.0 and why in the 1.2 and 1.3 implementations it also helped speed up boot time?

But, slight? Not really. If it was only a "slight" upgrade, then you wouldn't see the gutting of the bloatware out of oh say the kernel itself. Notice the trend in 'nix land? You know where the pre-built kernel is now full of useless bloat, causing increasingly longer startup times. And we're just starting with the security stuff.

Oh and win7 is still available at retail, and online, and from MS. Though in the case of MS, you need to contact them by phone or via email to buy it.

--"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." --H.L. Mencken

How about we just except that everyone's experience will be different when it comes to their particular installs of Windows 7 and 8, eh? This bickering about which is better is pointless. Even on systems with the same hardware, you can have different performance, depending on driver versions and which apps are installed, what kind of Net connection you have, what kind of GPU you run, etc etc. We all know this. You all know this. So why are you arguing about it? We can all compete in a pissing contest but the only thing you end up with is a big pot of piss. So zip up, put the measuring tape away, and let's just all think of reasons why AMD is so much better than nVidia...

=-Rigs-=

'Now, we gave you a promise and we are bound by that promise and damn you for asking for it! And damn me for agreeing to it! And damn all of us to Hell because that is exactly where we're going!'

Hanneth wrote on Aug 17, 2014, 01:01:My experience is that Windows 8.x may, boot way faster, or way slower. My old main rig went from 60 second start up in Windows 7 to 90 seconds in Windows 8. 8.1 did not improve things.

My netbook, officially unsupported by Windows 8, went from 80 second start up to 20 seconds.

As for application support, there are a number of games that will not run in Windows 8.1, some of them quite new. My blu-ray player will not run, even though it is officially supported. Though I upgraded from Windows 7 instead of fresh install and apparently Windows forgot to install one of the base DLL files which caused the blu-ray player not to work. I also needed to get new versions of some of my video editing software. In my experience Windows 8.x was a crappy downgrade experience all around on the software compatibility side.

My new rig I upgrade to Windows 7 and I must say the usability and compatibility has gone way up. It boots in 24 seconds.

Do tell, what games wont run on win8 (or 8.1) that will run on 7? I'm genuinely curious as i've never encountered ANYTHING that wont run on 8 that will run on 7.

My experience is that Windows 8.x may, boot way faster, or way slower. My old main rig went from 60 second start up in Windows 7 to 90 seconds in Windows 8. 8.1 did not improve things.

My netbook, officially unsupported by Windows 8, went from 80 second start up to 20 seconds.

As for application support, there are a number of games that will not run in Windows 8.1, some of them quite new. My blu-ray player will not run, even though it is officially supported. Though I upgraded from Windows 7 instead of fresh install and apparently Windows forgot to install one of the base DLL files which caused the blu-ray player not to work. I also needed to get new versions of some of my video editing software. In my experience Windows 8.x was a crappy downgrade experience all around on the software compatibility side.

My new rig I upgrade to Windows 7 and I must say the usability and compatibility has gone way up. It boots in 24 seconds.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with AMD drivers and who cares, Windows 9 is being fast tracked so everyone will be happy soon.

Getting back on track, what is the situation these days with AMD drivers? I'm looking at new GPUs soon and weighing options. Last time I owned one was in the 5850 days and the drivers were very iffy at times.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Aug 17, 2014, 00:10:You mean going from ~15-30sec to ~6.5-9sec on exactly the same build, the whole difference being the OS is "slight?" It's not more compatible? You mean apps that would refuse to run under 7 even with excessive tinkering, but work fine under 8? It's not more stable, but that's why even under poorer hardware that was crash prone under 7, the same doesn't happen with 8? Sadly, most people who "don't know the difference" are the same people who "don't know how to look at things under the hood."

I shaved 4 seconds off my boot time moving between identical hardware, yes that is slight. You posted nothing at all specific about which apps were suddenly compatible nor what 'crash prone' elements about Windows 7 were fixed in 8. Most people who claim they know what's 'under the hood' just cite vague sources because they don't actually have a clue and are just blindly trusting articles they read.

There's nothing really wrong with 8 other than Metro but claiming its anything but a slight improvement over 7 is disingenuous. Nothing wrong with slight improvements either but they aren't worth upgrading for if you're already running 7 and happy with it. For newer builds well, those people don't have a choice anymore.

Redmask wrote on Aug 16, 2014, 22:29:I wouldn't go that far. Windows 8 boots slightly faster than Windows 7, almost imperceptibly so on an SSD. That is mainly due to the fact that Windows 8 doesn't actually do a hard reboot in many circumstances. It is not 'more compatible' than Windows 7 and is no more or less stable. Windows 8 is a slight improvement over Windows 7, so slight that many people would never know the difference. If you're building new then sure get Windows 8.1, not like you have a choice anymore. If you have Windows 7 don't bother with Windows 8, wait for 9.

There is just something amusing about supporting Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 but not Windows 8.

You mean going from ~15-30sec to ~6.5-9sec on exactly the same build, the whole difference being the OS is "slight?" It's not more compatible? You mean apps that would refuse to run under 7 even with excessive tinkering, but work fine under 8? It's not more stable, but that's why even under poorer hardware that was crash prone under 7, the same doesn't happen with 8? Sadly, most people who "don't know the difference" are the same people who "don't know how to look at things under the hood."

--"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." --H.L. Mencken

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Aug 16, 2014, 20:32:Yeah, don't worry there bro. 8 and 8.1 are leagues ahead of 7 in terms of compatibility, stability and boot time.

I wouldn't go that far. Windows 8 boots slightly faster than Windows 7, almost imperceptibly so on an SSD. That is mainly due to the fact that Windows 8 doesn't actually do a hard reboot in many circumstances. It is not 'more compatible' than Windows 7 and is no more or less stable. Windows 8 is a slight improvement over Windows 7, so slight that many people would never know the difference. If you're building new then sure get Windows 8.1, not like you have a choice anymore. If you have Windows 7 don't bother with Windows 8, wait for 9.

There is just something amusing about supporting Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 but not Windows 8.

HoSpanky wrote on Aug 16, 2014, 12:18:You should just upgrade to Windows 7 instead.

Yeah, don't worry there bro. 8 and 8.1 are leagues ahead of 7 in terms of compatibility, stability and boot time. The only downside to it was metro, which is easily fixed.

saluk wrote on Aug 16, 2014, 16:10:I haven't upgraded because the 2 times I have tried have left my system unbootable. 8.1 was rushed. I've never had as much trouble or gone through as many hoops trying to upgrade as I have with 8.1 - and that includes upgrading vista to windows 7 and upgrading windows 7 to 8 (on another machine).

So the "silliness" as you say isn't just partly on microsoft's fault. I lay all the blame there.

If you're getting an unbootable system under 8.1 then the problem is almost certainly on your end. And it will almost be laid right in the lap of a driver misbehaving. $20 says if you grab the straight 8.1 iso, and do a clean install it'll be just fine, and if that's the case then just migrate everything from 8 to 8.1 with the migration tool and go on your way.

Anyway, these drivers are actually much better than the previous RC's that were put out. Only downside is they have serious problems with flash+firefox and hardware acceleration on my rig, w/7950. Turning hardware acceleration off and everything is good. Otherwise I'm seeing bloody BSOD's with them.

edit: some type of clarity, pain killer induced writing is a pain.

This comment was edited on Aug 16, 2014, 21:46.

--"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." --H.L. Mencken

WaltC wrote on Aug 16, 2014, 12:35:Hard to believe that anyone alive hasn't already updated to 8.1...;) This reminds me of Win7 and service packs--all the numbskulls who refused to go to SVC pck 1 & so forth, because of some obscure principle that made sense to precisely two people (usually people who objected to the idea of paying for their OS, etc.)...!

This is really old news (60 days +) as we are now on 14.7RC3 beta and the decision to drop 8.0 wddm 1.2 support (because wddm 1.3 is better) began two months ago, with the 14.6 betas.

Partly, this silliness is Microsoft's fault, too--since it should have called 8.1 "service pack 1" in the established Windows tradition of service packs--because that is exactly what 8.1 is. This is what happens when marketing people are put in charge of naming technical products--rarely does anything make any sense until you get past the silly marketing.

Like, there are going to be no more "patch Tuesdays" at Microsoft because some marketing hillbilly decided that "update Tuesday" sounds better--so we're getting "update Tuesdays", instead. Predictably, some dumb people are running around screaming "No more patching from Microsoft!" If there's a way to break something that is already fixed, it will be a marketeer who will do it.

I haven't upgraded because the 2 times I have tried have left my system unbootable. 8.1 was rushed. I've never had as much trouble or gone through as many hoops trying to upgrade as I have with 8.1 - and that includes upgrading vista to windows 7 and upgrading windows 7 to 8 (on another machine).

So the "silliness" as you say isn't just partly on microsoft's fault. I lay all the blame there.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Aug 16, 2014, 15:33:Wonder if this will do anything to help with the artifacting I'm getting with my R9 280X. Still not sure what causes that. It was really bad at first, but then I upgraded to the 14.6 Beta drivers and it was better. Still get the artifacting sometimes though. Once it starts, I pretty much have to reboot.

Wonder if this will do anything to help with the artifacting I'm getting with my R9 280X. Still not sure what causes that. It was really bad at first, but then I upgraded to the 14.6 Beta drivers and it was better. Still get the artifacting sometimes though. Once it starts, I pretty much have to reboot.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Hard to believe that anyone alive hasn't already updated to 8.1...;) This reminds me of Win7 and service packs--all the numbskulls who refused to go to SVC pck 1 & so forth, because of some obscure principle that made sense to precisely two people (usually people who objected to the idea of paying for their OS, etc.)...!

This is really old news (60 days +) as we are now on 14.7RC3 beta and the decision to drop 8.0 wddm 1.2 support (because wddm 1.3 is better) began two months ago, with the 14.6 betas.

Partly, this silliness is Microsoft's fault, too--since it should have called 8.1 "service pack 1" in the established Windows tradition of service packs--because that is exactly what 8.1 is. This is what happens when marketing people are put in charge of naming technical products--rarely does anything make any sense until you get past the silly marketing.

Like, there are going to be no more "patch Tuesdays" at Microsoft because some marketing hillbilly decided that "update Tuesday" sounds better--so we're getting "update Tuesdays", instead. Predictably, some dumb people are running around screaming "No more patching from Microsoft!" If there's a way to break something that is already fixed, it will be a marketeer who will do it.

It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!